OT: 10x more green jobs than fossil fuel jobs

[Rick C]

On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 9:34:36 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 11:47:43 AM UTC+11, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 7:06:33 PM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote...

10x the people to generate a fraction of the
power is shocking inefficiency.

Wrong math, most are building and installing
systems with 25-year lifetimes and relatively
little maintenance needed during that time.

So you are saying lots of temporary green power jobs?

Solar power is generating some 1.6% of the US energy budget.

It's going up at 37% per year, which means that it could take 13 years to get it to 100% of the budget.

The installation work force would rise in the same proportion, which would mean that 600 million people would be busy finishing the job in the last year - and most of them would have to be imported.

A more realistic picture would probably spread out the process, but it could keep a lot more of the work force busy than it does now for quite while..

It's worth noting the price of solar cells has halved when the production volume goes up by a factor of ten, so if the rest of the world is on the same 37% per year growth trajectory, the unit price of solar cells is going to be half what it is now in only seven years, which should make the process go even faster.

Ethanol production for gas is based on ICE auto fuel usage. With EVs ramping up, I guess it won't be long before the bottom of the corn market drops out unless someone gets the farm lobbies to agree to scale back ethanol production.

I read an article recently that was very confusing about how there is some figure for corn/ethanol production requirements or subsidies (it was a couple of weeks ago, so I'm not sure which) that was being based on the government projection rather than the actual figures of fuel usage. Isn't it time to ditch the ethanol requirement in gasoline? That would make a lot of people happy (who aren't farmers).

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

On Sat, 26 Oct 2019 18:34:32 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

>It's worth noting the price of solar cells has halved when the production volume goes up by a factor of ten, so if the rest of the world is on the same 37% per year growth trajectory, the unit price of solar cells is going to be half what it is now in only seven years, which should make the process go even faster.

Solar makes sense in low latitude locations, in which the annual peak
consumption is in the summer, especially in low cloudiness areas.

Even halving the panel price would make them only slightly more
attractive in high latitude areas. in which the peak consumption is in
the winter and/or there are lot of clouds, In these areas the annual
capacity factor is going to be low and a larger number of panels is
needed for the annual energy consumption,

Of course building huge power lines (with NIMBY effects between low
and high latitude areas would help, but panel prices would have to
drop further to pay for these power lines.

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 9:04:30 PM UTC-4, Phil Allison wrote:

jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

------------------------------------------

Dopey Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com

wrote:

The US green economy has 10 times more jobs than the
fossil fuel industry, 9.5 million vs. 0.9 million.
That was in 2016, when Trump took charge. Funding
for the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) Green Goods
and Services (GGS) survey had already been killed,
so others had to get the data.

10x the people to generate a fraction of the power is shocking
inefficiency.



** The per unit cost of energy is a direct refection of providing decent incomes for ALL those involved in creating and getting it to you.

Simplistic analysis of the above data suggests that the eventual cost of fully Green electricity will be around 10 times that of fossil and nuclear power.

Plus 90 million of the US population will be employed in doing it.

Not a fucking chance.

The problem is this is not apples to oranges. While renewables are being built up with a lot of cost in that ramp without actually producing a kWh, fossil fuel capacity construction has already been paid for and so is not being factored into the equation.

The bottom line is the $/kWh is the correct metric. Other than subsidies, the construction cost (and jobs) is factored into that. In fact, that is the lion's share of the cost, the depreciation of the investment, unlike fossil fuels where the lion's share of the costs are in the fuels. So it only makes sense that the cost of labor would be larger for renewables, there's little other costs!

I suppose it makes some people happy to twist the logic and prove that we can't afford renewables.

Ok, whatever. Time for the tirade to start. lol

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Phil Allison]

Rick Cunt the Martian Nutter wrote:

-------------------------------------

Dopey Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com

wrote:

The US green economy has 10 times more jobs than the
fossil fuel industry, 9.5 million vs. 0.9 million.
That was in 2016, when Trump took charge. Funding
for the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) Green Goods
and Services (GGS) survey had already been killed,
so others had to get the data.

10x the people to generate a fraction of the power is shocking
inefficiency.



** The per unit cost of energy is a direct refection of providing decent incomes for ALL those involved in creating and getting it to you.

Simplistic analysis of the above data suggests that the eventual cost of fully Green electricity will be around 10 times that of fossil and nuclear power.

Plus 90 million of the US population will be employed in doing it.

Not a fucking chance.


The problem is this is not apples to oranges.

** Why post under my words if you are going to ignore them ?

Looks a lot to me like you never read them at all.

Go post you meandering " stream of consciousness " CRAP somewhere else.

I reckon you must be real "fun" to speak with - like talking to a robot.

unlike fossil fuels where the lion's share of the costs are in the fuels.

** You were howled down here for posting that complete ASURDITY before.

Must be part of some fuckwit Green mantra that you cannot let go of or your entire case collapses in a heap. Kerr plop.

BTW:

You made a complete FUCKING ASS of yourself over the Stun Gun criminal.



...... Phil

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 3:51:06 PM UTC+11, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:

On Sat, 26 Oct 2019 18:34:32 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

It's worth noting the price of solar cells has halved when the production volume goes up by a factor of ten, so if the rest of the world is on the same 37% per year growth trajectory, the unit price of solar cells is going to be half what it is now in only seven years, which should make the process go even faster.

Solar makes sense in low latitude locations, in which the annual peak
consumption is in the summer, especially in low cloudiness areas.

Even halving the panel price would make them only slightly more
attractive in high latitude areas. in which the peak consumption is in
the winter and/or there are lot of clouds, In these areas the annual
capacity factor is going to be low and a larger number of panels is
needed for the annual energy consumption,

Of course building huge power lines (with NIMBY effects between low
and high latitude areas would help, but panel prices would have to
drop further to pay for these power lines.

Australia's energy half-wits are going nuts about the hydrogen economy, where Australia is going to use it's sunlight to electrolyse hydrogen, liquify it, and ship tankers full of it to Japan and South Korea.

Of course you need three times as much sunlight to deliver a given amount of energy as liquid hydrogen as you'd need to charge up batteries to deliver the same amount of energy, so there isn't going to be much of a local market.

The proper long term solution would be intercontinental power cables.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basslink

Basslink (between Tasmania and the Australian mainland) didn't seem to generate much NIMBY protest. The intercontinental equivalent would probably need to exploit superconductivity, which is a a way off yet, but greed may get us there surprisingly quickly.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Sat, 26 Oct 2019 18:34:32 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 11:47:43 AM UTC+11, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 7:06:33 PM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote...

10x the people to generate a fraction of the
power is shocking inefficiency.

Wrong math, most are building and installing
systems with 25-year lifetimes and relatively
little maintenance needed during that time.

So you are saying lots of temporary green power jobs?

Solar power is generating some 1.6% of the US energy budget.

It's going up at 37% per year, which means that it could take 13 years to get it to 100% of the budget.

The installation work force would rise in the same proportion, which would mean that 600 million people would be busy finishing the job in the last year - and most of them would have to be imported.

Not only installation but also maintenance. Millions of solar panel
cleaners would be required, a suitable job for millions of imported
unskilled workers.

A more realistic picture would probably spread out the process, but it could keep a lot more of the work force busy than it does now for quite while.

It's worth noting the price of solar cells has halved when the production volume goes up by a factor of ten, so if the rest of the world is on the same 37% per year growth trajectory, the unit price of solar cells is going to be half what it is now in only seven years, which should make the process go even faster.

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 1:02:02 AM UTC-4, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:

On Sat, 26 Oct 2019 18:34:32 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 11:47:43 AM UTC+11, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Saturday, October 26, 2019 at 7:06:33 PM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote...

10x the people to generate a fraction of the
power is shocking inefficiency.

Wrong math, most are building and installing
systems with 25-year lifetimes and relatively
little maintenance needed during that time.

So you are saying lots of temporary green power jobs?

Solar power is generating some 1.6% of the US energy budget.

It's going up at 37% per year, which means that it could take 13 years to get it to 100% of the budget.

The installation work force would rise in the same proportion, which would mean that 600 million people would be busy finishing the job in the last year - and most of them would have to be imported.

Not only installation but also maintenance. Millions of solar panel
cleaners would be required, a suitable job for millions of imported
unskilled workers.


A more realistic picture would probably spread out the process, but it could keep a lot more of the work force busy than it does now for quite while.

It's worth noting the price of solar cells has halved when the production volume goes up by a factor of ten, so if the rest of the world is on the same 37% per year growth trajectory, the unit price of solar cells is going to be half what it is now in only seven years, which should make the process go even faster.

Sounds to me like a good job for automation! I guess we can import the machines if that pleases you.

--

Rick C.

-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 12:23:42 AM UTC-4, tabb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sunday, 27 October 2019 00:06:33 UTC+1, Winfield Hill wrote:
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote...

10x the people to generate a fraction of the
power is shocking inefficiency.

Wrong math, most are building and installing
systems with 25-year lifetimes and relatively
little maintenance needed during that time.

so even more than 10x the people for a fraction of the energy.

Yes, we are doomed... DOOMED!!! How can we be corrupted by all these charlatans?

I guess we have no choice but to legislate a death penalty for working on renewable energy. That will put an end to the problem and free up energy they would have been using as well! Win-win!!!

We'll have to go back to hanging. We can't be burning them up in an electric chair.

--

Rick C.

-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 1:21:25 AM UTC-4, Phil Allison wrote:

Rick Cunt the Martian Nutter wrote:

-------------------------------------

Dopey Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com

wrote:

The US green economy has 10 times more jobs than the
fossil fuel industry, 9.5 million vs. 0.9 million.
That was in 2016, when Trump took charge. Funding
for the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) Green Goods
and Services (GGS) survey had already been killed,
so others had to get the data.

10x the people to generate a fraction of the power is shocking
inefficiency.



** The per unit cost of energy is a direct refection of providing decent incomes for ALL those involved in creating and getting it to you.

Simplistic analysis of the above data suggests that the eventual cost of fully Green electricity will be around 10 times that of fossil and nuclear power.

Plus 90 million of the US population will be employed in doing it.

Not a fucking chance.


The problem is this is not apples to oranges.


** Why post under my words if you are going to ignore them ?

Looks a lot to me like you never read them at all.

Go post you meandering " stream of consciousness " CRAP somewhere else.

I reckon you must be real "fun" to speak with - like talking to a robot.


unlike fossil fuels where the lion's share of the costs are in the fuels.


** You were howled down here for posting that complete ASURDITY before.

Must be part of some fuckwit Green mantra that you cannot let go of or your entire case collapses in a heap. Kerr plop.

BTW:

You made a complete FUCKING ASS of yourself over the Stun Gun criminal.



..... Phil

It's not even a full moon, is it???

--

Rick C.

+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 11:22:32 PM UTC+11, Phil Allison wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:

------------------


** No reply from me is required here.

Bill has been "off with the fairies" for decades now.

If getting data links from the web counts as "off with fairies".

> If he fondly imagines that having the last word all the time makes him the winner - then who am I to spoil his day.

Somebody who can't come up with counter-arguments.

> What need is there for that?

What needs was there for you to comment in the first place?

So far all you've told us that hydro power is the bulk of the US renewable sector (which was what Win was talking about) and it took me just one Google search to find out that it was 24%.

It's you who is off with the fairies, and you need to find a better-informed bunch of them.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 10:48:07 PM UTC+11, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:

On Sat, 26 Oct 2019 22:41:53 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:

------------------


** Most of that is Hydro - right ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United_States

says that 24% of that renewable energy is currently hydroelectric, 20.8% is wind, and 5.8% solar. The rest is biofuel and biomass.


** Biofuel is not Green energy at all - merely "renewable".

Biofuels are fully dispatchable. You can run it in gas turbines and
diesels when unreliable sources (such as wind and solar) fail
simultaneous.

No need for expensive battery backup.

Biofuels capture about 0.1% of the energy in the incoming sunlight.

Solar cells capture about 25%.

That makes biofuels a lot more expensive than even the most extravagant battery back-up.

Using solar cells to electrolyse water to hydrogen throws away about three-quarters of the energy captured before it can be turned into dispatchable power which is still massively extravagant compared with batteries, but it beats the hell out of growing crops

Using precious, cropable land to make it means humans starving.

Don't Martians love to cheat ??

We've been exploiting hydroelectric power for more than a century now, so all the big projects have been working for ages.

** So should not be included in your fake calcs as it cannot be significantly expanded.

Actually, install additional new turbines into existing dams. Close
all turbines during the day to save water and let solar handle the day
consumption. Run the saved water through turbines in the late evening
and early next morning, when there is a lack of solar production.

No need for expensive battery backup.

That's pretty much what Snowy 2 is going to do. Fine if you have nice wet mountains with room for plenty of dams and a decade or so to enlarge them.

https://www.snowyhydro.com.au/our-scheme/snowy20/about-snowy-2-0-2/

When you run out of them, batteries back-up starts looking more attractive.

Tesla put the South Australian battery pack together in less than 100 days, which is lot quicker than ordering turbines and digging caverns to put them in.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Phil Allison]

Bill Sloman wrote:

------------------


** No reply from me is required here.

Bill has been "off with the fairies" for decades now.

If he fondly imagines that having the last word all the time makes him the winner - then who am I to spoil his day.

What need is there for that ?



..... Phil

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 4:41:57 PM UTC+11, Phil Allison wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:

------------------


** Most of that is Hydro - right ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United_States

says that 24% of that renewable energy is currently hydroelectric, 20.8% is wind, and 5.8% solar. The rest is biofuel and biomass.


** Biofuel is not Green energy at all - merely "renewable".

Using precious, croppable land to make it means humans starving.

It hasn't so far. Some biofuel options - like using fermenting corn (maize) to make alcohol are obvious nonsense - but apparently Brazil's scheme using sugar-cane as the sugar source isn't quite as silly.

There are some biofuel crops that don't actually compete with food crops. It's still a pretty stupid way of getting energy from sunlight, but as long as you have captured the CO2 that ends up coming out of the exhaust pipe it's green enough.

> Don't Martians love to cheat ??

Politicians make a habit of it, wherever they come from.

We've been exploiting hydroelectric power for more than a century now, so all the big projects have been working for ages.

** So should not be included in your fake calcs as it cannot be significantly expanded.

Nobody said that it was.

The expansion is mostly wind and solar - biofuels are essentially burning different fuels in existing thermal generating set-ups.

Solar is expanding faster.

its going to need progressively more over the next 43 years to get
it 100% at which point some 60 million people would be needed.
That's less than 90 million.


** Phew, I had begun to think it might be a problem.

Power bills increasing by a factor of 60 is perfectly OK

That won't happen - you are echoing John Larkin's idiot mistake, confusing the number of people required to put up new plant (which is capital investment) with the number required to keep it running after it has been put up (which is running costs).

** Your hypothetical 60M people is an absurdity.

A fairly obvious and intentional one. Mindless extrapolation does lead to absurdities

> Energy users would have to pay them with massive bills, for umpteen years.

What makes you think that? Existing energy supplies are capital-intensive too.

> Then make the vast majority redundant.

That's not the way you'd do it. Mindless extrapolation isn't the way such projects get planned - in as far as they get planned at all.

Australia's mining industry now employs a lot less people than it did when the industry was ramping up, which has created some depressed areas. The economy copes, and there aren't lot of politicians trying to get the electorate excited about the way it worked out.

> Crazy stuff like that ONLY happens on Mars, using Martians.

Australia isn't Mars. It certainly has worked like that here.

> So is not the way us Earthlings will go.

Dream on.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Phil Allison]

upsid...@downunder.com wrote:

---------------------------------------

** Biofuel is not Green energy at all - merely "renewable".

Biofuels are fully dispatchable.

** Who woulda thunk ?

Liquid fuels can be transported and used at whim - wow !!!

... but they FUCKING are not Green one tiny bit.


FYI:

Nuclear fuel is "renewable" and Green why not include that ??

FFS Those Martians sure are a bunch of whacko cheats.




..... Phil

 

On Sat, 26 Oct 2019 22:41:53 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
<pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:

------------------


** Most of that is Hydro - right ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United_States

says that 24% of that renewable energy is currently hydroelectric, 20.8% is wind, and 5.8% solar. The rest is biofuel and biomass.


** Biofuel is not Green energy at all - merely "renewable".

Biofuels are fully dispatchable. You can run it in gas turbines and
diesels when unreliable sources (such as wind and solar) fail
simultaneous.

No need for expensive battery backup.

Using precious, cropable land to make it means humans starving.


Don't Martians love to cheat ??


We've been exploiting hydroelectric power for more than a century now, so all the big projects have been working for ages.

** So should not be included in your fake calcs as it cannot be significantly expanded.

Actually, install additional new turbines into existing dams. Close
all turbines during the day to save water and let solar handle the day
consumption. Run the saved water through turbines in the late evening
and early next morning, when there is a lack of solar production.

No need for expensive battery backup.

 

On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 05:11:02 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
<pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:

upsid...@downunder.com wrote:

---------------------------------------


** Biofuel is not Green energy at all - merely "renewable".

Biofuels are fully dispatchable.


** Who woulda thunk ?

Liquid fuels can be transported and used at whim - wow !!!

Apparently you have never heard the expression "to dispatch a power
plant" or the job title power plant dispatcher

... but they FUCKING are not Green one tiny bit.


FYI:

Nuclear fuel is "renewable" and Green why not include that ??

FFS Those Martians sure are a bunch of whacko cheats.




.... Phil

 

On Sunday, 27 October 2019 06:02:43 UTC, Rick C wrote:

Yes, we are doomed... DOOMED!!! How can we be corrupted by all these charlatans?

I guess we have no choice but to legislate a death penalty for working on renewable energy. That will put an end to the problem and free up energy they would have been using as well! Win-win!!!

We'll have to go back to hanging. We can't be burning them up in an electric chair.

What have you been smoking?

 

On Sunday, 27 October 2019 05:31:33 UTC, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 3:23:42 PM UTC+11, tabb wrote:
On Sunday, 27 October 2019 00:06:33 UTC+1, Winfield Hill wrote:
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote...

10x the people to generate a fraction of the
power is shocking inefficiency.

Wrong math, most are building and installing
systems with 25-year lifetimes and relatively
little maintenance needed during that time.

so even more than 10x the people for a fraction of the energy.

NT is being just as stupid as John Larkin. The people involved in building and installing the systems are a capital investment, not a running costs.

Bill demonstrates his stupidity yet again.

 

On Sun, 27 Oct 2019 05:31:55 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 10:48:07 PM UTC+11, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Sat, 26 Oct 2019 22:41:53 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
pallison49@gmail.com> wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:

------------------


** Most of that is Hydro - right ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United_States

says that 24% of that renewable energy is currently hydroelectric, 20.8% is wind, and 5.8% solar. The rest is biofuel and biomass.


** Biofuel is not Green energy at all - merely "renewable".

Biofuels are fully dispatchable. You can run it in gas turbines and
diesels when unreliable sources (such as wind and solar) fail
simultaneous.

No need for expensive battery backup.

Biofuels capture about 0.1% of the energy in the incoming sunlight.

Biomass is a fine way for long time energy storage, no problem storing
for a few months (summer to winter) or even store for decades. It has
made it possible for people to live at high latitudes for thousands of
years.

Solar cells capture about 25%.

That makes biofuels a lot more expensive than even the most extravagant battery back-up.

Countries with a lot of forest industry also have a high renewable
percentage. When trees are delivered to the paper or pulp factory,
only part of the biomass is used for the end product, the rest is
burned in the recovery boiler, which is used to power the factory as
the excess is sold to the free market.

You can also make methanol or ethanol and burn it somewhere else.

Thus, the bio energy is just a byproduct of making paper or pulp.


>Using solar cells to electrolyse water to hydrogen throws away about three-quarters of the energy captured before it can be turned into dispatchable power which is still massively extravagant compared with batteries, but it beats the hell out of growing crops

Storing huge amounts of hydrogen for several months doesn't sound too
appealing .

 

[Winfield Hill]

Bill Sloman wrote...

Using solar cells to electrolyse water to hydrogen throws
away about three-quarters of the energy captured before
it can be turned into dispatchable power which is still
massively extravagant compared with batteries, but it
beats the hell out of growing crops

It can be done much more efficiently than that. Here's
an example of improving electrocatalytic water splitting
efficiency by 45%, and another of 13% overall efficiency,
for "direct" solar to CO. Steady progress is being made.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/l90wb9s92y77tpr/2019_Peng_H2-Generation.pdf?dl=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/matnnxj3f542hq4/2017_Jiang_transition-metals.pdf?dl=1

Although I'm a co-author of both papers, for supplying
electronics, I did not check the efficiency calculations.


--
Thanks,
- Win